Police are investigating two robberies – one of them armed – which occurred in a 24 hour span over the weekend, with one of the suspects located by a Sheriff’s K9 unit, police say.
The first incident occurred at about 12 AM Saturday morning in the East 7th and Nowlan Street area where a delivery person was robbed. After being robbed, the victim chased the suspect with his vehicle, and the suspect crashed his vehicle and fled on foot. K-9 units were called in and managed to trace the suspect to a nearby home, where he was arrested.
K9 units were called in again shortly after 10 PM last night, when officers believed a gun was thrown by a party during a foot pursuit, but no gun was recovered.
Shortly before 1 AM Sunday, two men were reportedly held up at gunpoint in the Highpoint area. One of the victims was robbed of about 25 dollars, police say. The suspects, both black males, got away. TLS.
It is said that a man’s home is his castle. The Fourth Amendment protect our homes from arbitrary searches without particularity and probable cause.
The dogs are on the agenda in 2012. The Court is going to decide if police can bring a dog up to your front door without reasonable suspicion to snoop at your house hoping to find cause for entrance.
The Court should come down that K-9 sniffs on the home are unconstitutional. In Kyllo v. U.S. (2001), it ruled that heat detectors cannot be aimed at homes intruding on the privacy of residents. Unless scent-sensitive dogs are as commonly expected at the front door as human invitees (including the possibility of a police officer), this will be ruled repugnant to the Constitution.
Unlike the automobile, whose occupants do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the home is the sacred refuge of every American.
Its about time the k9 catches someone
A Lang: your knowledge of the fourth amendment with regards to someone’s dwelling and curtilage is mostly accurate. You are indeed correct that law Enforcement cannot conduct a search of a dwelling except upon the basis of probable cause, consent or search warrant. However, the report of a robbery, victim and or witness testimony, and a crashed abandoned vehicle all clearly establish reasonable suspicion for a k-9 track. Once the canine picks up the trained odor and tracks to a dwelling and alerts, law enforcement now has probable cause to search that dwelling. Law Enforcement at this point can obtain a consent to search, secure the area and obtain a search warrant, or enter without a warrant if there was credible information that the subject was armed and dangerous. Comparing pursuing a suspect to a Supreme Court decision to intrusive surveillance utilizing infrared detection equipment is apples and oranges, and i don’t see the parallel. If during the search of the home for a suspect, law enforcement found concealed narcotics…. that now enters a grey area where it is likely that a good defense attorney could get that evidence suppressed.
THe Court will be hearing two companion cases soon. In Florida v. Jardine, the police brought a dog to the front door of a home after receiving an unverified crime stoppers tip it had drugs. Even under the Gates (1983) doctrine, an anonymous tip alone, without verification by the “totality of the circumstances” does not give rise to probable cause.
The dogs did not lead the police to Jardine, the police led the dogs. Jardine will win unless the warrant was based on the officer’s own sniff without the dog.
Florida v. Harris, by contrast, involved a dog sniff of an automobile that led to a search finding pills. Harris claims that the dogs were not trained to smell the pills. This case probably made it to the Court due to dicta and J. Souter’s dissent in U.S. v Place (1983), that a canine sniff and subsequent search of luggage at an airport is allowed because dogs are reliable and only alert officers to narcotics, for which no one has a legitimate privacy interest. Dogs cannot invade legitimate interests of privacy. This is assumption is incorrect. Canine searches in airports and on the road are legal because the limitation of their intrusion, which of course, cannot apply to the home. I won’t make a mistake in the Fourth Amendment–or the First, or any other part of the Constitution for that matter!
Who cares about how they look for a suspect for one thing and find a house full of drugs. If it is illegal, lock them up. Don’t give an out for stupidity. You lead cops back to your house full of drugs you deserve to be locked up. Why should the law have to turn their head on the drugs. More nonsense.
Yea who cares about whether or not 1 can bring K9 2 ur front door the bottom line is they caught the guy with the gun b4 he shoots UR kid dead on – fanito !
Comments are closed.